Pages

Wednesday, 23 September 2015

Today is Bi Visibility Day – which, since 1999, has been a day to
celebrate and recognise bisexuality (and pansexuality), the bisexual
community and bisexual history.

Initially set up by three activists in the USA – Wendy Curry, Michael
Page and Gigi Raven Wilbur – to challenge what they considered to be
“bi invisibility”, Bi Visibility Day is now celebrated internationally
and helps to raise awareness of the issues bi people face.

Bi Visibility Day is more than a celebration – it’s a powerful
statement. And it’s one that’s as relevant today as it was 16 years ago.
It’s about proudly highlighting the B in LGBTI. It’s about putting a
face on our bisexual communities. And it’s about challenging the many
myths associated with bisexuality – as well as the biphobia such
misconceptions inevitably create, both inside and outside the LGBTI
community.

I’m bi. I also assume I’m visible, given most people have no
difficulty in seeing me. But so often it’s very frustrating when I am
perceived as either straight (I’m currently in an opposite-sex, bisexual
relationship) or as gay – as any of us who are less than 100 percent
bisexual are inevitably labelled.

Bisexuality is often seen as something of a curiosity, an obscure and
perhaps confused identity associated with those who can’t make their
minds up. There are those who believe bisexuality is mythical or
impermanent, who fail to appreciate that sexuality is fluid and that
sexual orientation doesn’t always come packaged in tidy boxes. What Bi
Visibility Day does is to embrace bisexuality as a real sexual
orientation, educate society and erase some of the false stereotypes.

Biphobia is also a very real, and very serious, issue. What Bi
Visibility Day has done is to encourage society to become more
bi-inclusive – and this is true even within LGBTI organisations, many of
which have taken up the challenge to actively reach out to bi people
and highlight uniquely bi issues.

For too long it’s been easier to identify as straight or gay – mainly
because of societal biphobia. And yet, interestingly, a recent YouGov
survey found that half of the UK’s young people do not identify as fully heterosexual
– while hardly a measure of active bisexuality, it does point to the
reality that many clearly feel uncomfortable with binary notions of
gender and orientation. However, the same survey also found that a fifth
of young people believed everyone was either straight or gay.

This survey shows the challenges for Bi Visibility Day. There clearly
remain myths, misconceptions, prejudices and stigma associated with
bisexuality – while the increasing number of people who find themselves
somewhere between heterosexuality and homosexuality need to be empowered
to proudly embrace their identity.

Improving bi visibility is vital to making life easier for those of
us who are attracted to more than one gender, and Bi Visibility Day
makes a huge difference in changing attitudes. Unfortunately, many more
pro-equality organisations need to proactively embrace it: the shocking
lack of any publicised Bi Visibility Day events in Scotland (aside from
some Edinburgh-based events hosted by the Centre for LGBT Health and Wellbeing) suggests we need to be taking the issue more seriously that we do.

That said, it’s great to see #bisexuality and #BiVisibilityDay trending on twitter – so at least we’re visible online.

Well, there was the issue of a lengthy hospital admission shortly before the General Election, a more recent rather nasty road traffic accident that left me unable to get around, the birth of a new baby (Heidi, who is now 11 weeks old), and the challenge of balancing my work and responsibilities with KaleidoScot with political activity.

It should also be said that I've become increasingly frustrated with life as a Liberal Democrat and, while I remain a convinced liberal and a card-carrying member, my motivation for activism has been somewhat drained of late. In short, I often have other things to do. There's nothing like a bit of honesty, saying it as you see it.

Which brings me to Willie Rennie.

I like Willie. I really do. Readers of this blog might not always have realised it, but we agree with each other 95% of the time - and when we don't I understand his good intentions.

I even argued that the Liberal Democrats should have withdrawn from Better Together entirely. Basically, I failed to see any political or electoral advantage from association with a campaign that was ineptly led, characterised by negativity and ill-informed asides at the SNP, resorted to peddling patronising semi-truths (at best) and which inevitably allied us to what was a Labour-dominated tribe in which our voice was completely sidelined.

I recall very clearly the party's response to my criticisms. Senior Lib Dems were always on hand to trot out the tired "it's not negative to ask hard questions of the SNP" line. Others stated that data sharing would help us fight the General Election more effectively (remind me how that went). Yes, they might concede that Better Together had made mistakes, but the Yes side weren't perfect either. There seemed a complete lack of willingness to accept that the Liberal Democrats were getting very little from being identified with a terrifyingly incompetent and at times rather nasty campaign.

It seems, however, that Willie Rennie agrees with me - and others who made similar observations. Behind the mask of acquiescence, privately Willie and other senior Lib Dems had serious concerns about Better Together on virtually every level. They certainly appear not to have bought into the "positive case for the union" lie that many of our own members, doubling up as Better Together activists, were trying to sell on doorsteps across Scotland.

Willie told The Herald that Better Together was “shambolic in its development”, its output “dark”, its operations “secretive”, and that - while it won the referendum did so in a way which "didn’t make us feel very good about it”. That all sounds very familiar.

He even targeted David Cameron as the man who "did more damage to the
Union than the SNP had done for years.” Well said Willie.

He didn't stop there. He criticised the internal dynamics of Better Together, in which the distinct parties had little in common other than shared opposition to independence. “It was a clash of three different political parties. We all had very
different visions for the union, so inevitably the common element was
what we were against, which was independence.

“So to get a consensus, you were focusing on the negative. You couldn’t do a positive vision.”

Turning on the divisive influence that was Scottish Labour, Willie added: "Labour had a dark campaigning style. It was very secretive.
Everything would be last minute. You would never be told much about what
was going on until it happened. We all suffered. The Tories and
ourselves suffered more, but some in Labour were out of the loop as
well."

He describes a situation in which a closed clique was all-powerful. "It was Blair
[McDougall] and Rob [Shorthouse]. People like that were making decisions and had this addiction
to secrecy. It was quite shambolic in its development. Internal communications were poor.
You just weren’t told about plans. Things were kept back." He also expressed frustration at the baffling decision to use some of Better Together's least attractive supporters to defend the union: "You want to give people confidence in the UK, not mavericks [like George Galloway].”

According to Willie, Better Together was top-down, negative, inept, unable to grasp opportunities and with a tendency for self-destructive actions. He's not wrong - but I could have told him this a couple of years ago. In fact, I did.

Willie added a final, rather interesting observation. He claimed that Better Together failed to make a strong "emotional" case, and admitted that yes Scotland managed to be "more open,
more trusting, more positive about the country, and present a bright
vision for where we want to be. That’s what the SNP managed
to sell quite effectively. It was all hogwash. But they sold it quite
well, and that’s to their credit. I just wish we could do a bit of that
ourselves.”

This is a very welcome admission form our Scottish leader. On a personal level, I find it quite affirming - especially given the opposition (and at times abuse) I received from fellow members for saying precisely the same thing. It's vital that - given the potential for another independence referendum in the not too distant future - the Liberal Democrats learn the necessary lessons. Never again can we be allowed to find ourselves mumbling impotently on the sidelines, our positive ideas being reduced to academic footnotes in a poisonous and tribal narrative.

However, while I am happy to praise Willie for his (overdue) honesty, I still have some questions. Why did these experiences not demand a change in his own strategy and choices? Why did the Scottish Liberal Democrats remain (publicly at least) so assenting towards Better Together? Why did we allow ourselves to be effectively sidelined, thus depriving ourselves of the opportunity to sell our genuinely distinctive policies on Home Rule and federalism? Does the party now accept that association with Better Together had destructive consequences? Does Willie rue not making a case for the second question on the ballot form?

Most importantly, have the Scottish Liberal Democrats moved on from the binary thinking that frame the independence debate? Certainly, the counter-productive General Election strategy of appealing to "No" voters in the Labour and Conservative parties suggests we have some way to go on that front.

While Willie Rennie's remarkable honesty in the Herald interview is very welcome, there appeared no willingness to admit to mistakes or provide any explanation for the way in which decisions made during the referendum campaign have contributed to our current predicament. His criticisms of other parties and the organisation are justified and accurate, but I'd be reassured to know Willie understands the degree to which some of the choices made in recent years have ill-served the party.

I'd be even more reassured if he could confirm that he understands that rebuilding the party requires reaching out to SNP-sympathetic voters and selling a distinctly progressive - and Scottish - vision, rather than concentrating his efforts on convincing unionists to begrudgingly lend us votes. Whether we like it or not, the new political realities require new thinking - and an insight into the reasons behind our increasing irrelevance.

Awards and reviews

Reviews of A Scottish Liberal

"Andrew is an excellent writer and analyst about a broad range of policy and philosophical topics. It is great to see him recognised as such across Scotland and throughout the UK. And he speaks Gaelic." Gavin Hamilton, A View from the Hills

"Every one of our MP's should read this. Best blog I have read this year." Gerry McGregor, Thoughts of a Caithness Loon

"Andrew has an easy style of writing and a moderate and thought-out approach to his subject. He is as likely to criticise his own party, as he is another. In short he thinks for himself, makes his arguments accordingly and is nobody's yes man." Tris, Munguin's Republic

"The blog by Andrew Page is well worth visiting. He seems to be a man that will not bow down to party dogma [unlike the Labour MPs and MSPs]. I respect a man who is willing to shelve his career to do what he thinks is right."Gedguy, My Frustrated Rants

Andrew Page - A Scottish Liberal

Andrew is a member of the Liberal Democrats, who feels politics is at its best when it empowers and is at its worst when it descends into tribal adversarialism.
Andrew is is the treasurer of the Lib Dem Mental Health Association. He is also a member of the Council for British Archaeology, the Liberal Democrat History Group, Lib Dems Against Trident, Lib Dems for a Republic and the Liberal Democrat Association of Trade Unionists.
Thoughts expressed on here are Andrew's own and occasionally may differ from those of the Scottish Liberal Democrats.